18 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 266,691 times 281 Legal Analyses
Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 279,746 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Vt. Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 Beargram Co.
373 F.3d 241 (2d Cir. 2004) Cited 2,471 times
Holding that where a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court may not rely solely on the facts asserted in the movant's 56.1 statement but “must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion.”
Business Guides v. Chromatic Comm. Enterprises
498 U.S. 533 (1991) Cited 925 times
Holding that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 was not a fee-shifting provision because Rule 11 sanctions were not “tied to the outcome of litigation,” instead turning on whether a “specific filing” was well founded, and shifted the costs of a “discrete” portion of the litigation rather than the litigation as a whole
U.S. ex rel Riley v. St. Luke's Episcopal Hosp
355 F.3d 370 (5th Cir. 2004) Cited 912 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding relator’s complaint "sufficiently allege[d] that statements were known to be false, rather than just erroneous, because she assert[ed] that Defendants ordered the services knowing they were unnecessary"
O2 Micro Intern. v. Monolithic Power Sys
467 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2006) Cited 633 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that diligence must be considered in determining whether good cause exists to amend infringement contentions
McZeal v. Sprint Nextel Corp.
501 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2007) Cited 414 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard
Q-Pharma, Inc. v. Andrew Jergens Co.
360 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2004) Cited 154 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the statement that "further pursuit of the lawsuit would not have been worth the investment" was not evidence of bad faith
View Engineering v. Robotic Vision Systems
208 F.3d 981 (Fed. Cir. 2000) Cited 147 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that performing a pre-filing assessment of the basis of each infringement claim is . . . extremely important. In bringing a claim of infringement, the patent holder, if challenged, must be prepared to demonstrate to both the court and the alleged infringer exactly why it believed before filing the claim that it had a reasonable chance of proving infringement
Anton/Bauer, Inc. v. PAG, Ltd.
329 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Cited 66 times
Holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 361,353 times 960 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 163,831 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 Cited 37,377 times 150 Legal Analyses
Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney
Rule 16 - Pretrial Conferences; Scheduling; Management
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 Cited 35,535 times 55 Legal Analyses
Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)
Rule 84 - Abrogated (Apr. 29, 2015, eff. Dec. 1, 2015).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 84 Cited 1,037 times 7 Legal Analyses
Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"

Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc. et al

18 Cited authorities

Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding that where a motion for summary judgment is unopposed, the district court may not rely solely on the facts asserted in the movant's 56.1 statement but “must be satisfied that the citation to evidence in the record supports the assertion.”

Holding relator’s complaint "sufficiently allege[d] that statements were known to be false, rather than just erroneous, because she assert[ed] that Defendants ordered the services knowing they were unnecessary"

Holding that diligence must be considered in determining whether good cause exists to amend infringement contentions

Holding that a direct infringement claim made in accordance with Form 16 (now Form 18) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure meets the Twombly pleading standard

Holding that the statement that "further pursuit of the lawsuit would not have been worth the investment" was not evidence of bad faith

Holding that the plaintiff must prove that the end users directly infringed its patent in order to succeed on its claim of contributory infringement

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

Adopting the sanctions authorized by Rule 37(b)

Explaining that the appended forms "are sufficient under the rules and are intended to indicate the simplicity and brevity of statement which the rules contemplate"